yes, I'm seeing lots of comments from altcoin people asking how to use SC's to hitch their altcoins into the bitcoin network. That's just swell.

Why are we doing this again?

Gosh, how awful. Reminds me of the disaster when TigerDirect started accepting Bitcoin. Some people probably went out and aquired BTC so they could use them at TigerDirect. How did Bitcoin survive?!?

Word to the wise: If you are 'invested' in an altcoin which does not welcome sidechains and is planning to migrate as soon as possible, dump it. Before it's scammy management pulls the trigger and takes a dump on you.

...There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.

Yes, I think that's probably right.

That's why I keep harping on the exchange-rate being definable by "any deterministic function". We're going to get all kinds of a wacky "experiments", and many may have the perverse property of effectively being their own completely (or nearly-completely) free-floating alt, while still technically being able to be defined as a "bitcoin sidechain".

Sidechains are being marketed as a way to 1:1 fix the full supply of a new chain to bitcoin, but the reality is that that's just one of infinite possible specifications.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

Innovation comes from innovative people and doesn't cease to be innovation just because such people happen to be working on an altcoin. The fact is that many altcoins have smart and creative people working on their development who are doing interesting innovative things. That's not really a function of which coin they happen to work on.

To clarify, by many I mean in absolute terms, and even there the number is probably not more than 20-30. The vast majority of the 1000+ altcoins are worthless scams. Most of those are copy-paste and don't even claim to be innovative anyway. Some number are likely scams in some sense but also innovative in some sense.

Also, it is possible to be innovative in marketing and community building. Maybe you don't agree with that, but if you think the Bitcoin marketing, community, and reputation is perfect, we will have to agree to disagree. It is no surprise at all to me that some reasonable people may like and support cryptocoins generally but want no part in Bitcoin specifically.

we will have to disagree on the word reasonable here. reasonable people do not dismiss something because of hearsays, reputation and/or other users, they do their own due diligence.

I don't see how there is any innovation in someone creating a sidechain coin "because hey why not?"

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

That's why I keep harping on the exchange-rate being definable by "any deterministic function". We're going to get all kinds of a wacky "experiments", and many may have the perverse property of effectively being their own completely (or nearly-completely) free-floating alt, while still technically being able to be defined as a "bitcoin sidechain".

Sidechains are being marketed as a way to 1:1 fix the full supply of a new chain to bitcoin, but the reality is that that's just one of infinite possible specifications.

I don't believe the hope was necessarily to "kill" alt coins experimentation but moreso to foster the innovation (from altcoins that do innovate) and allow interoperability between them and the Bitcoin blockchain.

See this quote from Gmaxwell :

Quote

Part of what I want (pegged) sidechains to exist and be successful is so that I can spend less time telling people NO and more time telling them "Good Luck with that", without having to also be telling them to create something that competes with the bitcoin currency.

I believe the "good luck with that" is addressed to these "wacky" experiments.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Innovation comes from innovative people and doesn't cease to be innovation just because such people happen to be working on an altcoin. The fact is that many altcoins have smart and creative people working on their development who are doing interesting innovative things. That's not really a function of which coin they happen to work on.

To clarify, by many I mean in absolute terms, and even there the number is probably not more than 20-30. The vast majority of the 1000+ altcoins are worthless scams. Most of those are copy-paste and don't even claim to be innovative anyway. Some number are likely scams in some sense but also innovative in some sense.

Also, it is possible to be innovative in marketing and community building. Maybe you don't agree with that, but if you think the Bitcoin marketing, community, and reputation is perfect, we will have to agree to disagree. It is no surprise at all to me that some reasonable people may like and support cryptocoins generally but want no part in Bitcoin specifically.

we will have to disagree on the word reasonable here. reasonable people do not dismiss something because of hearsays, reputation and/or other users, they do their own due diligence.

You are now dismissing their point of view on the same basis. I never said hearsay, etc. The Bitcoin brand is quite damaged from scams and more broadly impaired by being portrayed as a scary fringe idea that often appeals to criminals. That may be fair or unfair, true or untrue, but in marketing, perception matters. So yes, reasonably people see an opportunity to promote crypto while avoiding collateral damage from the likes of Karpells, etc.

Quote

I don't see how there is any innovation in someone creating a sidechain coin "because hey why not?"

Of course there isn't. Sidechains may be innovative (in terms of technology or otherwise) or they may be stupid, just as with anything else.

Innovation comes from innovative people and doesn't cease to be innovation just because such people happen to be working on an altcoin. The fact is that many altcoins have smart and creative people working on their development who are doing interesting innovative things. That's not really a function of which coin they happen to work on.

To clarify, by many I mean in absolute terms, and even there the number is probably not more than 20-30. The vast majority of the 1000+ altcoins are worthless scams. Most of those are copy-paste and don't even claim to be innovative anyway. Some number are likely scams in some sense but also innovative in some sense.

Also, it is possible to be innovative in marketing and community building. Maybe you don't agree with that, but if you think the Bitcoin marketing, community, and reputation is perfect, we will have to agree to disagree. It is no surprise at all to me that some reasonable people may like and support cryptocoins generally but want no part in Bitcoin specifically.

we will have to disagree on the word reasonable here. reasonable people do not dismiss something because of hearsays, reputation and/or other users, they do their own due diligence.

I don't see how there is any innovation in someone creating a sidechain coin "because hey why not?"

I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. Here's why:

Lots and lots of people are propagandized into being favorable to the 'sustainability' movement. The efforts which drive the movement are necessarily implemented at the government level and through public/private partnerships with so-called non-profits and such. The key is that without the government, the objectives of the movement (which are many and varied and appeal differently do different individuals) are not tenable. This translates through the neural net into the association between government and good.

The trouble with Bitcoin is that it is inherently anti-autoritarian by virtue of it's striving to be free of authoritarian control. This translates into it being anti-government and thus anti-good. AKA, 'bad'. But the idea of crypto-currencies is inherently cool which makes a lot of the progressive techie types heads start to short circuit internally like that hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary.' What do do?

Answer: Adopt a different crypto-currency. This allows the comfortably appropriate attitude towards Bitcoin (violently negative) while enjoying the 'coolness' of crypto-currency.

So, my thesis is that Doge will ride on the back of the herds of progressive semi-sophisticated 'sustainable' sheep, and those herds will be kept healthy by the powers that be (through mercury, flouride, public education, PBS, psychotropic pharmaceuticals , and a raft of other well developed mechanisms.) Make some noise about helping some of our darker world citizens in Africa from time to time and the popularity could sustain indefinitely.

Of course nothing useful is useful for only good things, and Doge would be no exception. Doge probably is useful and thus probably will be used for bad things just as is Bitcoin, USD, etc, etc. But humans are remarkable good at forgetting why they liked something in the first place (when they even understood it.) So this mal-utilization is unlikely to phase the adherents.

That's why I keep harping on the exchange-rate being definable by "any deterministic function". We're going to get all kinds of a wacky "experiments", and many may have the perverse property of effectively being their own completely (or nearly-completely) free-floating alt, while still technically being able to be defined as a "bitcoin sidechain".

Sidechains are being marketed as a way to 1:1 fix the full supply of a new chain to bitcoin, but the reality is that that's just one of infinite possible specifications.

I don't believe the hope was necessarily to "kill" alt coins experimentation but moreso to foster the innovation (from altcoins that do innovate) and allow interoperability between them and the Bitcoin blockchain.

See this quote from Gmaxwell :

Quote

Part of what I want (pegged) sidechains to exist and be successful is so that I can spend less time telling people NO and more time telling them "Good Luck with that", without having to also be telling them to create something that competes with the bitcoin currency.

I believe the "good luck with that" is addressed to these "wacky" experiments.

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

...AKA, 'bad'. But the idea of crypto-currencies is inherently cool which makes a lot of the progressive techie types heads start to short circuit internally like that hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary.' What do do?...

Heh...yeah. The "solution" to that which many have come to in the past few months is to assert "blockchain tech is awesome!" while disavowing "the currency". Such confusion!

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

I agree.

About the 1:1 peg specification : it may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification volume wise (in terms of sidechains created) but considering sidechains would allow the possibility to leverage the liquidity of BTC into different chains I'm under the impression it (the 1:1 peg) is the likely candidate for purposeful innovation.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

I agree.

About the 1:1 peg specification : it may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification volume wise (in terms of sidechains created) but considering sidechains would allow the possibility to leverage the liquidity of BTC into different chains I'm under the impression it (the 1:1 peg) is the likely candidate for purposeful innovation.

I indeed hope it works out that way.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

The main one I'm thinking of certainly did see some spikes, but didn't bite. Other friends of the type I'm thinking of watched the whole thing and heard about it from me as it was starting to happen at least, but had the kind of viscereal negativity that induced the above screed.

Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I actually don't know anyone's actual possition in Dogecoin (if any) and it's a bit rude to ask. All I know is that some people of the type I've illuded to seem to have a decent familiarity with it.

To answer your question though, No, No No! Making money is greedy and evil! The only reason to be involved with something is to help save the earth.

I, as kind of a lefty liberal progressive myself fall into something akin to that trap (without so much of the 'saving the earth' component since I can do some basic mathematics and have an inherently decent sense of magnitudes.) My own involvement with Bitcoin is not completely about making money, and I've struggled internally to understand the ratio of greed/altruism which affects me at any given time.

I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future.

Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

During the last big Bitcoin bubble LTC did even better. (DOGE didn't exist yet.) That's in general true of alts. They are positively correlated with BTC usually with leverage.

The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data. Crypto grows and shrinks together, and the truly shit alts (pure pump and dumps, blatant scams, etc.) never account for much other than noise. Given their size, the number of people who lose their money in them isn't even all that high, though of course it is unfortunate that it happens at all. Far more people lost far more money on MtGox then the entirety of altcoin scams, and that's just one Bitcoin scam.

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.

yep

In fact, just thinking out loud here, you could create demand (and therefore value) for such a coin by requiring payment of a fee in SideCoin to perform the transaction that will unlock real BTC. Such a transaction could burn the fee, increasing scarcity and value, which incentivizes more mining making the side chain more secure.

There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.

the paper is so light on details.

I've always assumed a merge miner has to mine the tx that unlocks the original btc. But do they have to be paid in SideCoin or can it be bitcoin? It would make sense to be sidecoin.

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

So bitcoin is different. If that's a manifestation of bitcoin-arrogance or "Bitcoin Maximalism" (a term I just heard for the first time), so be it.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

I've always assumed a merge miner has to mine the tx that unlocks the original btc. But do they have to be paid in SideCoin or can it be bitcoin? It would make sense to be sidecoin.

Unlocking doesn't require merged mining. In the paper it can be done two ways:

1. Using a federated model. This is essentially a multisig. This requires no change to BTC. It is ultimately up to the signers to decide (however they want) that the scBTC has been killed.

2. Using SPV-proofs. You provide an SPV-proof (chain of block headers) validating a transaction on the side chain that kills the scBTC, which is accepted by a BTC miner to unlock the coins. During a contest period (suggested to be days), someone else can provide a higher difficulty proof that invalidates yours, canceling the transaction. This requires a new op code.

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.

The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data.

Indeed, data so far suggests that new alts pretty much just compete with *other alts*. The alt-market has maintained 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for several years now.

If that were true you would expect hardly any correlation between BTC and alts, but a strong negative correlation between alts. But that is not what actually happens.

What exactly "is not what actually happens"? Alts have cumulatively been 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for years, or are you contesting this? The number of alts used to be <10. Now it's >400. Therefore, alts mostly compete with other alts for aggregate share of the crypto-pie...

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.

There is no evidence for the argument to be consistent with or not. Alts, in aggregate, have not appreciated in value relative to BTC (except for initially, obv); as asserted earlier, they've remained a fairly consistent portion of the total crypto mcap.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins, in spite of any so-called 2-way peg, or if they were perfectly fungible you would still end up with whatever percentage of the coins that had been mined constituting an inconvertible set of coins.

Could the sc miners be paid in txes fee only?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.